Olympic's bathroom facilities were
undoubtedly a step forward from earlier liners: her special suites on B and C
decks had access to private bathrooms, well equipped with showers and sprays
(fitted with porcelain enamelled screens), the wash basins fitted in marble
slabs, while the other 'public' first class bathrooms had hot and cold water
supplies in the baths, not to mention being fitted with special electric lights
which were operated automatically by the doors. However, many ordinary first
class cabins had access to shared bathrooms; the same was true on the
Imperator (1913) and Aquitania (1914). On Britannic, however,
practically all of the first class cabins had access to their own private
bathrooms - of the same high standard as those on Olympic - which put her
in a new class, far above the competition. Even some of the interchangeable
first and second class cabins on E-deck had private baths; a real improvement.

By Michail Michailakis

A new sanitation feature on the Britannic was the
installation of a sewage sytem, consisting of tanks where waste was collected
from the bathroom facilities. When these tanks were full, a float switch
activated pumps which discharged the waste under the surface of the sea. This
feature, being similar to an urban sewage system, was a major improvement. Until
then, waste from the bathrooms was discharged from the ships through the use of
a large number of pipes located above the waterline.

Cunard’s 790-foot
Mauretania (1907), White Star’s 882-foot Olympic (1911) and HAPAG’s
909-foot Imperator (1913) all had two expansion joints to relieve
stresses in their superstructure, but Cunard’s 901-foot Aquitania (1914)
and White Star’s 882-foot Britannic (1915) both had three expansion
joints amidships (Britannic had a fourth, which will be dealt with
later).

Atlantic liners
needed to be very strong, able to take the punishment of the seas for more than
20 years – Mauretania served for 27 years, Olympic for 24 years,
Imperator for 25 years and Aquitania for 36 years, although she had
been planned for retirement at 26 (before World War II) – but at the same time
they needed to flex in hostile seas. In Olympic’s case, the boat deck and
A-deck were lighter than her hull and B-deck’s strong construction, the two
expansion joints relieving stress and allowing the flexing of the structure;
Mauretania and Imperator were essentially similar. Aquitania’s
boat deck and A-deck were lightly-constructed as well, but equipped with three
expansion joints. The higher number of expansion joints allowed theoretically
for additional flexing and stress-relief for the superstructure, in theory a
better design feature.

Likewise, Britannic’s
design featured two expansion joints as on Olympic, but with a third
additional expansion joint between the second and third funnels. It is likely
that the fourth expansion joint near the aft mast was added because of the
enclosed after well deck, which was open on Britannic’s sister-ships.
Expansion joints were not a perfect solution to reduce stress – Olympic,
for example, experienced slight cracking as a result of fatigue on some of her
hull plates at B-deck level when she reached old age, which was overcome by
welding nine-tenths of the affected areas in 1931 and applying doublers to the
remainder; while the German liners Leviathan and Majestic
experienced severe cracking in their superstructure during the early 1920s
(mainly due to their funnel uptake design) and loose rivets near their
troublesome expansion joints, caused by stress.

Forward expansion joint (seen as a black line) on
Titanic.

On
January 13th 1931, Senior Board of Trade Ship Surveyor F. W. Daniel wrote:
‘Cases bearing on the same point [i.e. excessive fatigue] are the Aquitania
and Olympic, both recently reported. In my opinion, the number of
expansion joints could at least be doubled with advantage, so as to allow the
stresses being more evenly distributed over the uppermost strength deck. [i.e.
B-deck for Olympic and Britannic].’ In June 1934, Berengaria
(which had been laid up for most of the war and not seen anything near such hard
service as Olympic, or even the newer Aquitania) was noted as
having corrosion on some of her hull plating which had apparently existed for
some time, but it is interesting that it was stated this corrosion had not
weakened the plating or worsened fractures experienced, which were suspected as
being down to the ‘concentration of stresses amidships immediately under an
expansion joint.’ Such cases indicate the superiority of Britannic’s
design and it is worth pointing out that as well as relieving stress, expansion
joints served a good purpose in helping to eliminate vibration, which would
certainly have been appreciated on Mauretania.

The Grand Staircase

By Mark Chirnside

Britannic’s
forward grand staircase was the finest point of her grand interior, many people
would agree. Essentially it was similar in design to the staircase on her older
sister-ships, but several changes were made to improve further the design.

Although on the
earlier liners you could walk around the boat deck landing of the staircase, on
Britannic you were unable to because of the addition of an enormous pipe
organ which was installed at A-deck level and extended up to the boat deck
landing. The actual organ was out-of-sight, but at the foot of the stairs a door
surrounded by a beautiful carved design led to the organ, the pipes presumably
extending upwards and through the boat deck level, although apparently hidden
from view by what looks to be a carved screen.

Vestibules were located
at boat deck and A-deck level to ensure that when passengers went out onto the
promenade deck, the warm air was kept inside and the cold air was kept outside.
One change was made to the balustrades at boat deck level, for the sections on
the port and starboard sides that were closest to the actual staircase were
enlarged and the carving extended; the actual wooden handrail on each section
was made rounded, leaving an arch-like impression. General changes to this area
included the carving generally being more lavish and there is a possibility that
the chandelier in the centre of the huge glass dome was enlarged, judging from
an artist’s impression of the area.

Britannic's Grand Staircase

Perhaps the most
famous feature of this area on Olympic was the clock in a carved panel at
the top of the stairs, which represented Honour & Glory crowning time. However,
some mystery surrounds Britannic’s configuration. What is apparent in the
artist’s impression of the staircase is what appears to be a small clock in the
carving above the door leading to the organ, at the foot of the stairs on
A-deck. It seems strange that two clocks would be installed in this area, but in
my opinion the Honour & Glory panel and clock would have been retained on
Britannic as the top of the stairs would otherwise have looked bare; the
small clock would be far less obvious to passengers on the staircase, but more
visible for the passengers at boat deck level who might have been coming from
the lifts, which were extended to the boat deck on Britannic, but stopped
at A-deck on Olympic. Therefore it seems quite possible that the Honour &
Glory feature was retained and the smaller clock was merely an additional
feature, rather than a replacement.

Titanic's Grand Staircase

The flooring of the
grand staircase landings looks to have been different from Olympic's more
simple design, as can be seen from the picture in Simon Mills' Britannic: the
Last Titan and the photographs of Olympic in Don Lynch's and Ken
Marschall's Titanic: An Illustrated History.Britannic’s staircase
landings had diamond-shaped patterns on the flooring, but Olympic’s
staircase landings were simpler when she entered service, for the most part pure
white but with occasional black shapes in patterns at intervals; Olympic’s
half-way landing in front of Honour & Glory was pure white, while Britannic’s
shared the same pattern as the remainder of her landing flooring.

[Source: Harland & Wolff Photo H2153, Ulster
Folk & Transport Museum]

Partitions

By Remco Hillen

Olympic’s partitions:

Those partitions had a different function from the
ones present on the sisterships.On Olympic the sole function was to
separate the 1st class from the 2nd class.The partitions
resembled the collapsible gates that were installed for class-separation lower
in the ship.2 of those gates were installed, 1 on each side of the ship, near
the Restaurant area on B-deck.

Titanic’s partitions:

The partitions on Titanic were not build for
class-separation but they helped sealing off the enclosed part of the promenade
deck from the heavy elements of the Atlantic.Because of that, they were more
like a normal bulkhead, instead of Olympic’s collapsible gates.The steel
partitions were gull wing-shaped and had a door in their straight part and a
window in their angled part. The style of the steel door resembles doors that
would have been used in lower classes or machinery areas; it looks like H&W
chose functionality above style.Titanic only had 2 partitions, at A-deck
forward, as B-deck was filled with cabins and no partitions were needed.

Forward A-deck partition on Titanic.

Britannic’s partitions:

Britannic’s partitions were more ‘stylish’ than
the ones on Titanic. Wreck footage shows them as a straight wall, with 2
holes for doors.The fact that there aren’t any doors visible in the particular
wreck footage indicates that the doors were made of wood and were
deteriorated.It’s unknown what the exact style of the doors was, but it seems to
have been a normal door as used more often around the ship.They were definitely
not in a ‘machinery style’, with steel doors as on Titanic.Britannic
had 4 of these partitions in total, 2 at A-deck and 2 at B-deck; forward.

A covered area was
created for the third class passengers (down left corner in the Britannic
sketch) where the addition of a fourth expansion joint is also visible.Hatches
#5 and #6 were extended above the new coverAnother important modification is the
introduction of new staircases.2 of them allowing access from the well deck to
the A-deck and another one allowing access from the A-deck to the boat
deck.This arrangement was important for safety reasons,because now access to the
boat deck was easier for all-class passengers in case of an emergency.The second
class passengers gained extra deck space, created by the roof of the covered
area.Visible the absence of the 2 cranes on A-deck and the more simple shape of
its aft edge.In general,the result was the creation of larger space on B-deck
and A-deck.

Corrections:

-The aft wall of A-deck needs to be a straight wall;
the Palm Courts on Britannic were moved aft. Deckplans show this change, and
also, a photo which was taken at Harland&Wolff in the final stages of
construction shows the straight wall quite clear.

-The bulkheads aft of the the #4 hatches on B-deck
need venting grates added, 2 on each side, outboard.

-Photo's show an object near the mast, but it's unknown
what it is. This drawing shows a cable reel there, which is in my opinion too
small to match the object in photo's.

-There should be a firehose added just aft of the last
pole of the A-deck sides.

-The roofs between the hatches would have been grey, in
any case not white.

-The winches should be a dark green colour.

-A sidenote: there would have been ladders to gain
access to the roofs. I imagine that these would have been on the starboard walls
of the structure.

RMS Britannic's lifeboat configuration

By Mark Chirnside

Recently
the subject of Britannic’s planned complement of lifeboats has come under
discussion. While there had always been sources that varied in their statement
of the total number of lifeboats, until recently the general consensus had been
that Britannic was planned to have a total complement of forty-eight
lifeboats in commercial service, consisting of forty-six 34-foot long lifeboats
(two of these with motors) and two smaller cutters. However, in the light of new
evidence even this figure might be called into question. The purpose of this
article is to explore those sources relating to the total complement of
lifeboats planned for Britannic in commercial service and analyse them in
some detail. This is made harder by the fact that Britannic never made
her glittering maiden voyage to New York, not to mention the general scarcity of
sources relating to this ship compared to other vessels. From a variety of
sources, including primary and secondary material related to Britannic,
to sources relating to other ships which might help shed some light on the
matter, material will be presented in support of several configurations or
scenarios.

It
is important to start this article with information that we know to be strictly
accurate and can be proven as such, for we need a firm foundation on which to
build the discussion of various configurations. Britannic was a ship that
has been described as one of the safest ocean liners ever constructed. Matters
such as improved watertight bulkheads, a new watertight inner skin running for
much of the ship’s length, and safer lifeboat lowering equipment all figured
importantly in her design. As part of this quest for safety, the lifeboats that
Britannic would have been provided with in commercial service must have
been able to accommodate all those people who she could carry – namely, at least
3,529 passengers and crew, her registered capacity. It is unthinkable that
Britannic would not have been provided with enough boats to accommodate
everyone onboard, especially considering the great lengths that the White Star
Line went to in order to make the ship’s design as safe as possible. Therefore
the complement of lifeboats that Britannic was planned to have would have
accommodated a total of at least 3,529 passengers and crew.

It
has never been disputed that Britannic was planned to have eight huge
davits serving her lifeboats, as part of her redesign following the Titanic
disaster in the spring of 1912. These davits can variously be described as
‘gantry’ or ‘girder’-type designs, of strong lattice construction, towering
above the boat deck. Each davit could usually accommodate a maximum of six
lifeboats, indicating a total of twelve boats at each of the four ‘lifeboat
stations’ – the two davits abreast the officers’ quarters forward being ‘station
one,’ with stations two and three aft on the boat deck, and the two remaining
davits situated aft on the ship’s Shade Deck, the top of the deckhouse above the
ship’s poop deck. Using these figures, we can estimate that the ship could have
accommodated a total of forty-eight lifeboats.

As
far as I am aware, it has never been disputed that Britannic was intended
to carry two 34-foot motor boats and two 26-foot cutters; but what does seem to
be unclear, from a number of sources, is the total number of other boats – if
there were forty-four 34-foot wooden lifeboats there would have been forty-eight
lifeboats in total, but if there were only planned to be forty other 34-foot
wooden lifeboats then Britannic would have accommodated forty-four
lifeboats in total, including the motor boats and cutters.

Thus at this stage
we can confidently state that:

No matter what
their total number, Britannic’s lifeboats would have to accommodate at
least 3,529 passengers and crew.

Britannic
would have been equipped with eight ‘girder’-type davits, each generally
accommodating six boats.

Britannic
would have been equipped with two 34-foot motor boats and two 26-foot cutters.

Depending on the
number of other 34-foot wooden lifeboats onboard, Britannic’s total
complement of lifeboats would number the two motor boats, two cutters, added
to whatever number of 34-foot wooden boats.

Unlike
data for Titanic’s lifeboats, in Britannic’s case there is little
information as to the lifeboats’ individual capacities. Yet this data is vital
to ascertaining how many lifeboats were carried, for we know that whatever their
number, the lifeboats would have to have accommodated every single soul onboard
the ship. Even the 1912 specification book merely gives the dimensions of the
lifeboats, but not the number of people that each lifeboat could hold. However,
based on other sources, we can here try to reconstruct the lifeboats’ capacities
based on our knowledge of their size in cubic feet.

In
this table, it is clear that the lifeboats each had the following capacities in
cubic feet. It is important to stress that these capacities are only
approximate, for the lifeboats were not of a uniform breath or depth throughout
their hulls, but they seem to be the closest data available to us at present.

Length

Breadth

Depth

Estimated cubic capacity in feet

Wooden boats

34 feet

10 feet

4½ feet

1,530

Motor boats

34 feet

10 feet

4 feet

1,360

Cutters

26 feet

8 feet

3 feet

624

To narrow down
our estimated lifeboat capacities, we can present the capacity of one of
Titanic’s main fourteen wooden boats:

Length

Breadth

Depth

Estimated cubic capacity in feet

Actual cubic capacity in feet

Wooden boat

30 feet

9 feet 1 inch

4 feet

1,090

655.2

It
is clear that the estimated cubic capacities are far too optimistic, for the
plain reason that the lifeboats were not of a uniform size throughout their
hulls, as has been mentioned. From the size and capacity of one of Titanic’s
lifeboats, shown in the above table, it is clear that the actual cubic capacity
in feet is approximately sixty percent of that which we had estimated.Applying this detail to Britannic’s lifeboats in the
following table, we can estimate that her lifeboat capacities in cubic feet were
as follows, based on sixty percent of the original estimated figure:

Length

Breadth

Depth

Estimated cubic capacity in feet

Estimated actual cubic capacity in
feet

Wooden boats

34 feet

10 feet

4½ feet

1,530

918

Motor boats

34 feet

10 feet

4 feet

1,360

816

Cutters

26 feet

8 feet

3 feet

624

374

Alas,
even in this table the ‘estimated actual capacities’ do not seem accurate. Based
on the Board of Trade premise that one person took up ten cubic feet of space in
a lifeboat, then Britannic’s 34-foot wooden lifeboats would have
accommodated over ninety people each; her motor boats perhaps seventy people
considering the space taken up by their motors and other equipment; and the
cutters thirty-seven people each. On this basis, even if Britannic had
‘only’ had forty-four lifeboats in total, these would have accommodated 3,814
people; well above the ship’s capacity of 3,529 passengers and crew. Although it
is always desirable to have some lifeboat capacity in excess of requirements,
whether there would have been the need for almost three hundred ‘reserve’ places
is questionable, especially on a ship such as the Britannic with her
advanced system of davits. With forty-eight lifeboats in total, there would be
approaching six hundred places in ‘reserve,’ with the lifeboats carrying almost
4,200 people. We could conclude that the motor boats could each take much fewer
people than seventy, but even so that would leave the remaining boats with high
capacities, and even forty-four boats in total would have a considerable excess
capacity.

From
the data available here, all we can ascertain seems to be that Britannic’s
lifeboats could not accommodate as many people as they would seem to based on
their cubic capacities, at least so far as the calculations presented here are
concerned. If the boats could accommodate as many people as the cubic capacities
seem to imply, then Britannic would only have needed forty-one boats in
total. In comparison, her rivals Aquitania and Imperator (although
the figures for their total lifeboat complements also vary) were planned to
carry ninety-two and eighty-three lifeboats respectively, for 4,200 and 5,200
passengers and crew; they had much larger third class and steerage capacities
compared to Britannic and so were able to ‘squeeze’ far more passengers
into their hulls.

During
the sinking thirty-five lifeboats were launched, or at least floated on the
water after the sinking, as recorded by the rescue ships that came to
Britannic’s aid; considering the number of survivors there would have been
an average of thirty people per boat, which would be even lower if we considered
the numerous people in the water. Thus we can get little help from these
records. However, Fifth Officer Fielding is recorded as lowering one lifeboat
with seventy-five people, the highest figure recorded for a lifeboat to my
knowledge during the sinking, which coincides with an estimate of seventy-six
people based on twelve cubic feet per person. I also seem to remember another
source stating a full boat of seventy-five people, but I wish I could locate it
again. Based on supposition, we can assume that Britannic’s main
thirty-four-foot lifeboats accommodated seventy-five people each. Supposition is
by no means a preferred historical tool, but in these circumstances it seems to
be the only thing that we can do. A figure of seventy-five people would seem
reasonably accurate.

Here
we can base a scenario on forty-four, forty-six and forty-eight boats in total,
assuming that the main thirty-four-foot boats carried seventy-five people each:

Wooden boats

Total capacity

Total necessary accommodation in
motor boats and cutters

Total capacities

Forty

3,000 people

529 people

3,529 people

Forty-two

3,150 people

379 people

3,529 people

Forty-four

3,300 people

229 people

3,529 people

Even with
forty-four wooden lifeboats (forty-eight lifeboats in total) accommodating
seventy-five people, there would still need to be forty people in each cutter
and seventy-five people in each motor boat in order to accommodate Britannic’s
full complement of 3,529 passengers and crew. With seventy-five people in each
of the main lifeboats, only forty-eight boats could have accommodated everyone
onboard.However, for the sake of diversity the following table assumes eighty
people in each of the main lifeboats.

Wooden boats

Total capacity

Total necessary accommodation in
motor boats and cutters

Total capacities

Forty

3,200 people

329 people

3,529 people

Forty-two

3,360 people

169 people

3,529 people

Forty-four

3,520 people

9 people

3,529 people

In this
scenario, forty-four boats in total can be discounted, because the four
remaining boats – two motor and two cutters – would need to accommodate 329
people alone, or eighty-two people per boat; an apparent impossibility. With
forty-six boats, the motorboats and cutters would need to accommodate the 169
people remaining, an average of forty-two each, which seems believable. With
forty-eight lifeboats in total, there would clearly have been several lifeboats
worth of spare capacity.

The
only way to make the total of forty-four lifeboats possible is to assume that
they could each accommodate eighty-four people each, leaving 169 people to be
accommodated in the motor boats and cutters. It seems possible that they could
have accommodated this many people, but also doubtful for there is not a single
report of any of Britannic’s lifeboats ever being loaded with this many
people.

* * *

It
is worth exploring here the purpose of motor lifeboats. At the Titanic
Investigations in 1912, the question was raised as to whether or not it would be
advisable for motors to be fitted in some lifeboats on a ship. Lord Mersey put
this question to Edward
Wilding one of Harland &
Wolf’s designers and the deputy ofThomas
Andrews.
Interestingly,
Wilding’s
reply sounded less than enthusiastic about motor boats, stating that they were
‘allowed’ rather than ‘recommended’ or ‘useful’:

20549. (The Commissioner)
Then I should like to ask this - it is only one of the
innumerable suggestions which have been made to me - I do not mean by my
colleagues - is it possible to have motor lifeboats? - Have you ever heard of
such a thing? - Motor lifeboats are allowed at present, my Lord, but the Board
of Trade deduct from the volume of the boat the cubic space occupied by the
motor in ascertaining the number of people it it eligible for.

20550. I know. But is a
motor boat more easily handled and handled by a less number of men? - In a
considerable sea-way, yes. As you have heard, on a very still night it only
wants two men and someone at the tiller with the ordinary boat.

20551. Yes, I know that. -
You can hardly handle a motor boat with less than three.

20552. Take ordinary
conditions, not the exceptional conditions that existed here. Is there any
advantage in having as a lifeboat a motor boat? - Well, there is this way of
looking at it. In a given boat or a given area of boat, that is a given size of
boat, with a motor in, you carry fewer people. Further, if a ship that is fitted
with wireless telegraphy there is no object in the boat going any great
distance. I mean if she remains near the scene of the accident she is more
likely to be picked up quickly.

20555. Then it is
suggested that a motor boat could tow the other boats? - Well, it can only do so
at the expense of its own speed, to a certain extent.

Several key points seem apparent from Wilding’s
testimony. Firstly, that in a motor boat cubic space needed for the motor and
equipment will be deducted from the boat’s overall capacity, indicating that the
number of people carried will be lower than a non-motor boat of the same hull
size and design. Secondly, in good conditions a motor boat could be handled by
only a few people. What we could conclude is that although the motor boats were
intended to carry a certain number of people, their purpose was two-fold:

to carry people off the ship, as
with the ‘regular’ complement of other boats;

and to assist other lifeboats in
the water, if it became necessary in any circumstances.

As part
of our analysis, it is important to include what the motorboats were used for
during the sinking. Unlike on Titanic, Britannic’s
crew were regularly put through their paces during frequent boat drills.

It seems
that the motor boats were intended as auxiliary launches aside from the
remaining ‘regular’ lifeboats and cutters, although they were certainly included
in the Britannic’s total complement of lifeboats. Perhaps this
might explain one (apparently mistaken) solitary modern reference to
‘forty-eight lifeboats plus two motor boats.’ The motor boats themselves were
well-equipped, and the specification of one of Aquitania’s motor
boats, made by the same company that constructed Britannic’s,
bears a good resemblance to the two installed on her. Each motor boat was fitted
with Marconi wireless apparatus, ship’s stores, blanket lockers, and a
doctor’s medical chest, along with other essential supplies – they were
described as having ‘oil and petrol motors’ for reliable service. It is
unfortunate that the present author was unable to contact Thornycroft’s
when he was researching the matter more than two years ago, for they might well
have been able to help with regard to the boats’ specifications and passenger
capacities.

Unfortunately for our calculations, the motor
boats’ capacities seem more mysterious than the rest of the ship’s boats; not
only do we have the individual capacities of the two cutters, but we also need
to know the two motor boats’ capacity, and the capacity of the remaining
‘regular’ thirty-four-foot long wooden boats – whether or not there were forty
or forty-four of them. What is clear is that if the two cutters accommodated a
combined total of eighty people, then (assuming a forty-eight boat
configuration) the remaining forty-six boats would have to accommodate an
average of seventy-five people per boat in order to accommodate everybody
onboard the ship. Yet the motors in two of the boats render it unlikely that
they could accommodate the same number of people as the other boats which did
not have motors; and without adequate numbers an average of about seventy-five
people for forty-six boats in a forty-eight boat configuration seems reasonable.
How that average was achieved is troublesome.

* * *

Having
established a framework for calculating the total number of lifeboats, we can
now present the sources supporting various configurations, and then assess them
with the first two definite criteria presented towards the beginning of this
article.

FORTY-FOUR LIFEBOATS

To my knowledge,
there are no published sources that state that Britannic was intended to be
fitted with forty-four lifeboats. However, there is an excellent primary source
detail from the vessel’s specification book, which was drafted in 1912.
According to the specification book, Britannic was intended to be outfitted with
the following lifeboats:

Forty 34-foot
long, ten-foot wide and 4½-foot deep wooden lifeboats.

Two 34-foot
long, ten-foot wide and 4-foot deep motor boats.

Two 26-foot
long, eight-foot wide and 3-foot deep cutters.

Harland & Wolff’s
official deck plans of Britannic, which apparently have never been published,
indicate a total of forty-four lifeboats; with the forward two ‘girder’ davits
serving only three boats each.

ANALYSIS IN
RELATION TO CRITERIA:

Forty-four
lifeboats, including forty wooden thirty-four-foot lifeboats, two motor boats
and two cutters could accommodate Britannic’s full complement of passengers
and crew, but only with eighty-four people in each of the forty wooden boats,
the remaining 169 people being accommodated in the motor boats and cutters.

With Britannic’s
eight ‘girder’-type davits, she could easily have accommodated forty-four
lifeboats in total, leaving space to spare.

FORTY-SIX LIFEBOATS

Interestingly, the
specification book also notes a total of forty-six lifeboats for Britannic, but
this figure for the ship pre-dates the forty-four boat figure and was apparently
revised down to the forty-four boat total mentioned previously from the
specification book. Nonetheless, it appears that the specification book
originally provided for forty-two wooden boats, two motor boats and two cutters,
of the same sizes as previously quoted.

Further evidence
that comes to light on the total number of lifeboats appears in photographs of
the builder’s model of Britannic, photographed just after the ship’s launching
and publication of those magazines, in April 1914. Unfortunately it is sometimes
hard to make out how many lifeboats are in the pictures, and indeed the
builder’s model might not have been configured entirely accurately, but
nonetheless this material is interesting. In a view looking ‘stern on,’ taken on
April 1st 1914 (Ulster Folk & Transport Museum photo 88), it is clear
that there were fourteen boats on the Shade Deck above the poop – two rows of
six boats, and two further boats above them, each suspended from one of the
‘girder’ davits. Because there were no funnels to complicate matters at this
station, it seems that the full complement of six lifeboats per ‘girder’ davit
could be accommodated, plus one boat suspended from each davit, in order to make
the total of fourteen lifeboats at this station.

Lifeboat configuration on the Shade Deck, as seen on the
builder's model. (Ulster Folk And Transport Museum - Courtesy of Russell Wild)

In another photograph (UFTM 85)
taken on the same day and showing a starboard profile of the builder’s model,
there appear to be fourteen boats on the Shade Deck, twenty-four boats aft on
the boat deck (six for each of the four davits situated there), and two wooden,
one motorboat and one cutter forward on each of the two davits abreast the
officer’s quarters; a grand total of forty-six lifeboats, apparently backing up
the earlier original figure from the specification book. In a photograph of the
model taken twenty-one days later on April 22nd 1914, there appear to
be an identical number of lifeboats: fourteen on the poop deck; twenty-four aft
on the boat deck; and eight boats forward on the boat deck, including the
motorboats and cutters. Unfortunately although it was photographed in spring
1914, the builder’s model appears to discredit both the forty-four and
forty-eight boat configurations, while backing up the originally contemplated
forty-six boat figure from the early specification book, which had been altered
at a later date. The model had originally been the Olympic and Titanic when it
had been completed in 1910 and the two elder sisters were practically identical,
although they became different in appearance as construction wore on. We could
conclude that when it had been changed from 1913 to resemble the Britannic as
redesigned after spring 1912, the builder’s model was specified to have
forty-six boats, and no alterations were made even after Britannic herself had
seen changes to her planned lifeboat profile. In any case, it is hard to offer
these pictures of the builder’s model as conclusive evidence.

Starboard side view of the builder's model (Ulster Folk And
Transport Museum)

ANALYSIS IN
RELATION TO CRITERIA:

Assuming eighty
people in each of the forty-two thirty-four-foot wooden boats, and the
remaining 169 people in the motor boats and cutters, Britannic’s full
complement of passengers and crew could have been accommodated in the
lifeboats.

It is well-known
that forty-eight lifeboats is the most commonly accepted figure for the total
number of lifeboats that were planned to be aboard Britannic.There are a number
of secondary 1914 sources which support this total. In the famous February 1914
edition of Engineering, the periodical noted that the Britannic was to
carry a total of forty-eight lifeboats. The Shipbuilder of March 1914
proclaimed: ‘Forty-eight of the largest size of lifeboats yet made are being
fitted, and two of these have powerful propelling machinery.’ In the same month,
The Marine Engineer & Naval Architect agreed with a total of forty-eight
lifeboats. Likewise, the figure of forty-eight lifeboats was repeated many times
in the press; for example, The Daily Telegraph. Whilst these are all
secondary sources, the fact that so many respected engineering magazines, which
got details correct in other respects about the ship, all repeat the total of
forty-eight lifeboats would seem to lend credence to the statistic.

Whilst the 1912
specification book pre-dates this material by two years, and there is reasonably
strong evidence suggesting that the lifeboat total had previously been revised
from forty-six to forty-four during construction, it seems possible that the
total number of lifeboats could have been revised again by the time of the
ship’s launching and outfitting in 1914. Certainly those technical magazines
relied heavily on the shipping companies and the shipbuilders for their
information, and it seems hard to imagine that they could all have got the
figure wrong unless they had been told that by either the White Star Line or
Harland & Wolff. To a lesser extent, the same reliance can be credited to the
newspapers and their reporters. These 1914 sources would certainly be more
accurate in terms of their similarity to the ship’s intended ‘final’ design,
simply because the ship had already been launched and outfitting had started.

ANALYSIS IN
RELATION TO CRITERIA:

With
seventy-five people in each of the forty-four wooden lifeboats, and the
remaining 229 people in the motor boats and cutters, Britannic’s full
complement of passengers and crew could have been accommodated in forty-eight
lifeboats. (Another possibility would be for the wooden lifeboats’ capacities
to be any number between seventy-five and eighty people, reducing the number
of people needed to be accommodated in the motor boats and cutters.)

Britannic’s
‘girder’ type davits could have accommodated forty-eight lifeboats in total.
With fourteen boats on the Shade Deck aft, twenty-four on the boat deck aft,
and another ten forward on the boat deck at the forward two davits,.
Nonetheless, forty-eight boats could certainly have been accommodated.

OVERALL ANALYSIS

Once again, the
conflict between sources cannot be overstated and bars the way to a more
coherent and clear analysis or evaluation of the ship’s likely configuration. In
a sense this mystery is a good thing, for it keeps interest up in Britannic, yet
it is not easy to summarise the great number of possibilities. For instance, if
the figure of fourteen lifeboats on the Shade Deck aft is disbelieved, and
twelve installed (six to each davit set), and we believed that there were three
boats on each girder davit beside the bridge as some sources show, then it would
not even appear to be possible to have forty-four lifeboats. It is clear that
whatever their number, the boats must have accommodated at least 3,529 people
– Britannic’s registered complement of passengers and crew. Beyond that, we are
speculating. Indeed, this fact is about the only one that we can
categorically state, even now. Hopefully I can sum up the evidence for the
various configurations, allowing debate to continue. It would be interesting to
see debate on the topic on this website’s forum.

FORTY-FOUR
LIFEBOATS

This figure is
backed up by the official Harland & Wolff deck plans, and the specification book
to an extent (bearing in mind several alterations). Britannic’s davits could
easily hold this many boats, yet each 34-foot wooden lifeboat would have to
carry at least eighty-four people for the forty-four boats to accommodate
Britannic’s maximum compliment of passengers and crew – this would be an
increase of thirty percent in their capacity compared to Titanic’s 30-foot
wooden boats, while the lifeboats were actually only thirteen percent longer and
just under ten percent wider.

FORTY-SIX
LIFEBOATS

According to the
specification book, forty-six boats certainly seems to have been the ‘original’
expected number of boats for Britannic. The ship’s davits could have
accommodated this many boats, and the builder’s model photographed after the
ship’s launch, in April 1914, would appear to back up this total – with fourteen
lifeboats on the Shade Deck aft, twenty-four on the after boat deck and eight by
the bridge on the forward two girder davits. Although the model does show two of
these boats on the davits and hanging unsupported, this may be to indicate how
the system worked and may not be an indicator of the intended stowing
arrangements. Assuming eighty people were carried in each of the wooden
lifeboats, then it is certainly possible that this configuration could have
accommodated all of Britannic’s passengers and crew. However, the builder’s
model’s accuracy can be questioned.

FORTY-EIGHT
LIFEBOATS

As the most
common figure of Britannic’s lifeboats, I may be slightly biased towards the
forty-eight boat configuration. Since a wide variety of 1914 sources at the time
of the outfitting gave such a figure, and got all the other details of the
ship’s specification correct from White Star and Harland & Wolff, I feel that
this is certainly a leading contender for the ship’s final configuration as
planned for transatlantic service. Each of the main 34-foot wooden lifeboats
would have needed to accommodate at least seventy-five people each in order to
hold Britannic’s maximum complement of passengers and crew, which seems close to
previous estimates of their individual capacities. With fourteen boats on the
Shade Deck aft, twenty-four aft on the boat deck, and ten on the forward davits
near the bridge, Britannic’s davits could have accommodated this many boats. The
placement of fourteen davits on the Shade Deck might seem excessive, yet even
with the forty-four boat configuration of six boats by the bridge davits there
would have to have been this many boats on the Shade Deck. Indeed, it would have
been useful to have secured additional space on the boat deck, with fourteen
boats aft on the ‘third class’ Shade Deck.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This
article was not a one-man effort. History isn’t and never should be. I would
like to thank Remco Hillen for a number of interesting discussions
relating to the lifeboats, Michail Michailakis for all his kind help and
information, and Simon Mills for both our discussion and allowing us to
use the information that he provided from the Britannic’s specification book in
this article.

Particular
note should be made here of Mark Warren’s wonderful Shipbuilder
reprints for much of the information on Aquitania’s and Imperator’s lifeboat
arrangements. (Warren, Mark D. Ed. Distinguished Liners from the Shipbuilder:
1907 – 1914 Volume 2. New York: Blue Ribband Publications; 1997.) For Britannic
herself I have relied on all of the usual sources, ranging from newspapers and
technical journals of the time to deck plans and photographs – and the
specification book’s data on forty-four lifeboats.